On 06/30/2015 02:06 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On 06/29/2015 02:13 AM, wangyf wrote:
Hello, Omar:
To update some cases to support RAID5/6 is necessary.
Like btrfs/011 btrfs/071 , and the man page of BTRFS-REPLACE,
they all should be modified.
But equipment damage and missing device is small probability event when
we use disks in our daily life. So it shouldn't be so important that we let
_btrfs_get_profile_confilgs know it.
Besides, every case tests a different direction of replace is good. e.g.
011 071 020 etc.
So I think to test it in a new case is better. What is your opinion?
cheers,
wangyf
Hi, Yanfeng,
Sorry, I think I might have been unclear. I definitely agree that the
missing case should be tested in a separate test case. However, I do
think that _btrfs_get_profile_configs should be updated so we can keep
things in one place and make sure that all profiles are thoroughly
tested. With _btrfs_get_profile_configs aware of RAID 5/6 and missing
device replacement, the new test case can just make use of that instead
of hardcoding the profiles to test. Does that sound alright?
Thanks!
Hi, Omar:
I think it again, and now I think you are right.
To let _btrfs_get_profile_confilgs be aware of replace+missing
many redundant codes can be evitable.
We can use it in a new test case to test missing device.
regards.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
